M I G R A N T FARM WORKERS: SOCIAL C O N D I T I O N S , ADAPTIVE BELIEF SYSTEMS, A N D PSYCHIATRIC CARE Dean Harper, H a r o u t u n M. Babigian, Ronald Parris, Bobby Mills,
Ph.D. M.D. Ph.D. Ph.D.
Two migrant farm labor camps were observed during two summer harvesting seasons. A part of the observations consisted of interviews with 104 farm laborers, with 16 of them being interviewed intensively. Migrant farm workers were exploited by the crew boss and the farm owner, and they in turn exploited each other. Consequently, many workers left farm work. Those who remained in the camps adapted their attitudes and their views to the conditions. Though they had a begrudging respect for the crew boss, they showed an overriding concern with exploitation. They conveyed a numbness about life, themselves, and their place in society; this numbness was combined with self-criticism and an attempt to maintain some self-respect. They expressed distrust for and suspicion of others, and though they could not articulate it very well, they felt great fear and anxiety. In order to diagnose and treat disorder in migrant farm workers, psychiatrists must understand the exploitive social setting of migrant farm work and the adaptations of workers to that setting.
O u r observations o f m i g r a n t labor c a m p s suggest that t h e r e is considerable p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y a m o n g the w o r k e r s r e q u i r i n g the attention o f c o m m u n i t y psychiatrists. H o w e v e r , b e f o r e a t t e m p t i n g to p r o v i d e psychiatric care, c o m m u n i t y psychiatrists n e e d to u n d e r s t a n d the social conditions o f m i g r a n t f a r m w o r k a n d the adaptive belief systems o f m i g r a n t f a r m workers. C o m m u n i t y psychiatrists have m o v e d away f r o m the office a n d the
Dr. Harper is Professor of Sociology and Psychiatry, and Dr. Babigian is Professor of Psychiatry and Acting Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. Dr. Parris is Associate Professor of Sociology in Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and Dr. Mills is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas. Reprint requests should be addressed to Dr. Harper at the Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 28
PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY, VOL 51(1) 1979 0033.2720/79/I 300-0028500.95
29 D. HARPER, H. M. BABIGIAN, R. PARRIS, AND B. MILLS
hospital setting; they have tried to provide care to segments of the population who have heretofore not received it and they have tried to provide it in innovative ways. However, one segment o f the population which has received very little medical or psychiatric attention consists of those who continue to "follow the sun"--the migrant farm workers. Having changed little in the past 30 years, the migrant labor camps of the North have attracted and continue to attract the attention of sociologists 1-a'11-1~ and journalists. 1°'14 These camps have been likened to prisons, prisoner of war camps, and concentration camps. Despite some similarities, there are crucial differences--one of which is that in the migrant labor camp, few workers are held against their will; they can usually leave when they want. Those who remain in these camps, however, show many forms of social pathology and psychopathology. Some attention has been given to urban migrants. 6,8 However, community psychiatry must attend also to rural migrants. In doing so, psychiatrists need an understanding o f the setting for the psychopathology they will see, or believe they see, in farm workers. This paper will describe that setting, outline what we call the "belief systems" of workers, and discuss the implications for psychiatric care. In our judgment, a knowledge of both the social conditions o f migrant farm work and the adaptive belief systems of migrants must precede any attempt to study and alleviate the psychic distress o f migrant farm workers. This paper is the result of research that was directed initially to psychopathology among migrant farm workers. We were interested in estimating the amount and kinds of disorder among migrants and in relating this to their life histories. Early in our investigations, it became apparent that we could not study psychopathology without attempting to understand social conditions in farm labor camps. Indeed, behavior which originally seemed symptomatic of mental disorder, appeared far less so once it was viewed in the light of the social conditions of the camps. Thus, our experience was like that of the psychiatrist who visits the home of a patient and becomes distracted with the sickness of other family members and with the living conditions of the family that impinges on their illness. Two migrant labor camps in upstate New York were studied during two summers. During the first summer, we "hung around" the camps, talking with workers, drinking a bit, trying our hand at working in the fields; during the second gummer, we continued these activities but, in addition, we interviewed all of the 104 workers who were in the camps at the beginning of work season. We interviewed with a structured questionnaire that focused on past work history, present work experiences, aspirations, attitudes, and beliefs. We also attempted to elicit self-reports of various symptoms of mental disorder. At the end o f the summer, 45 workers remaining in one of the two camps were reinterviewed, or interviewed if they had not been in the camp during the earlier interviews. Sixteen workers were interviewed at greater length; these interviews, recorded on a tape recorder, explored some of the issues in greater detail. The interviews and observations provide the data for this paper.
30 PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY
T H E SETTING OF MIGRANT FARM WORK The typical migrant labor camp consists of a number of wooden, cinder block, or corrugated metal buildings clustered together on the land o f a farmer. The farmer contracts with a crew boss to have his fruit or vegetables picked. The crew boss has the job of managing labor; he hires, supervises, and pays the worker. The farmer will typically deal only with the crew boss. In the northeastern United States, the crew boss and his workers are most frequently Puerto Ricans or southern blacks. The larger of the two camps we studied, and the more typical of migrant labor camps, was on a grower's land. The crew of 70 or 80 worked solely for this grower, picking cherries, apples, tomatoes, lettuce, cabbage and cucumbers as each crop became ripe. The crew boss had contracted with the grower to pick these crops for a fixed cost for the season. Out of this, the crew boss paid his workers and earned his profit. The crew boss rented the camp from the grower and, in turn, rented accommodations to workers for $ 8-10 a week. A dining hall and commissary was operated by the crew boss's wife. Workers were charged $3 a day for food. In addition, the crew boss sold candy, liquor, beer, soft drinks, gloves, shoes and the like, but at a cost of about twice that in nearby towns. Typically, the farm worker rented his room and purchased meals and other items on credit. Each week, his debts were deducted from his earnings. The farm worker was paid on a piece-work basis; records were kept by the crew boss and by his field foreman. In some instances, the field foreman erred in his record keeping, favoring some with extra counts at the expense of others who received short counts. Regardless, the worker would typically find his weekly pay envelope contained $10-20, the rest of his earnings of $80-$100 having been deducted for rent, food, and other expenses or charges. The crew boss did not attempt to hide the fact that he was successful and his workers were not. He claimed that it was a bad season for him when he did not clear $40,000 for the seven or eight months of camp operation. Whether the crew boss profited $5,000 or $50,000 is irrelevant, since most workers return to the south as they came--penniless. The second camp, with about 45 workers, was smaller. It was located on the land of a retired grower. The crew boss contracted the labor of his crew with several small growers, sometimes harvesting the crops of several growers simultaneously. This crew was in the north for a shorter period of time. The crew boss operated a store but not a dining room. Workers had to prepare their own meals from food purchased from the crew boss. Here also, they incurred debts which were deducted from their weekly earnings. In this camp, there was little physical violence. The boss was the strongest man but he seldom directed his strength physically against other workers. Rather, he attempted to maintain control by not recruiting would-be troublemakers and by banishing troublemakers from his camp. He prohibited drinking and gambling and kept prostitutes away. He also tried--and was partially successful--in keeping us off the camp and from
31 D. HARPER,H.M.BABIGIAN,R. PARRIS,AND B. MILLS
talking with the workers. He was a former preacher and tried to manage the camp, in his words, "in Christian love." His workers, however, earned no more than did those in the other camp.
CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS' BELIEF SYSTEMS By belief systems, we mean that set of beliefs and attitudes shared in common by most migrants. These are the beliefs and views about the camp, themselves, their place in the camp, and in society. We try to show that these beliefs and views result from attempts of migrant farm workers to adapt to their living and working conditions. Any assessment of psychopathology in an individual must be'judged against the adaptive belief system of those in the community to which he belongs--many o f whom are assumed not to exhibit serious psychopathology. Obviously, not all workers in these two camps are alike in demographic characteristics, educational achievement, and family or work experiences. Thus they are not alike in beliefs, attitudes, or values. Nevertheless, a number of beliefs and attitudes recurred in the interviews with migrants, who were otherwise different.
Exploitation The overriding experience in the lives of all migrant farm workers is
exploitation. As described above, their labor is exploited by the crew boss and the farm grower. Occasionally they are physically abused by the crew boss and their fellow workers. The question is: how do workers sense and experience this exploitation? How do they view the system which traps them in a life of poverty, illness, and helplessness? Although workers cannot articulate it very well, the exploitation they experience enters into much of their thought and conversation. When interviewed with a questionnaire and asked about camp or crew boss, many will say that it is a good camp and that they have a good crew boss. Yet the same workers, when talking freely, will refer to the camp as a "bad camp," as the "worst one they have ever been in," the crew boss as a "bad one." They talk to each other a b , ut the conduct of the crew boss, about how one worker, when sick one day, could not buy food on credit, about another working all week and finding $2 in his pay envelope, about the lack of heat in their rooms and the like. For example, one worker talked about Wilson, the crew boss of the larger camp: I had a buddy, David. He's married, he's from Tallahassee, Florida. Billy, his wife, was pregnant. And Billy worked every day of the week and David got rushed somewhat and he got down where he needed money to get medicine with.., the doctor told him to get some kind of medicine and he needed money. Wilson won't give him money. And David went out, he was half dead, that boy was half dead, he was down on his knees crawling, picking cucumbers. And he scraped up enough
32 PSYCttlATRIC QUARTERLY
money for him and his wife to go to Florida. And when they left and got on that bus to go to Florida, you know how much money they had to eat on all the way down there? $1.25 apiece. Now you know they needed help, and that man over there wouldn't help them, and he won't give David no money for his medicine. Migrants may accept the fact o f exploitation because they are powerless to do anything about it, but that does not m e a n that they believe it just o r fair. Most workers have a sense o f a p p r o p r i a t e a n d i n a p p r o p r i a t e behavior, but would react to exploitation by not defining it as such, o r by defining it as unfair and resigning themselves to it. Most o f the migrants felt that they were treated unjustly, but felt that the only thing they could do was to leave the camp.
Respectfor the Crew Boss A l t h o u g h workers were critical o f the way they were treated, at the same time t h e r e was a respect for the crew boss; m a n y workers a d m i r e d him because he was successful. Each crew boss started as a f a r m worker, had seen how the system works, and had the capacity to be successful within the system. T h e crew bosses may d e p l o r e the m i g r a n t c a m p system, as these two crew bosses said they did, yet they are not motivated to try to change it; and if they were, they would be powerless to m a k e m a n y changes. T h e y see the migrant camp system as existing regardless o f what they do; so, given this, they might as well take advantage o f it, and each crew boss did. T h e y did not exploit e v e r y o n e in every way. As Wilson, the crew boss in the larger camp, said: See that boy over there--Arthur Eaton. i wish he were my son. He is one of the hardest working men I've ever had. He clears $150 to $175 every week. And he banks it all. He goes into town on Friday night and puts it in the bank. He don't drink, he don't mess around with women. He's going in the army and when he gets out I'm going to send him to college, if it takes every cent I have. T h i s y o u n g m a n verified that he e a r n e d and b a n k e d what the crew boss claimed he did, but he was clearly exceptional. A l t h o u g h each crew boss was successful, each knew that there was no f u t u r e in farm work. In their own success, they manifested the value o f h a r d work, as well as the ability to manipulate and exploit. A n d each instilled in his own children the values o f h a r d work and the i m p o r t a n c e o f an education. T h e crew boss in the larger camp was sending all but one o f his children to college. T h e crew boss in the smaller camp had eight child r e n and he had sent or was sending all to college. T o exploit others is just a n o t h e r means o f achieving economic success. Hence, one who is successful at it should be respected just as he should be respected if he achieves a college education. By this token, although protesting their own treatment, many workers felt a g r u d g i n g respect for their
33
D. HARPER, H.M. BABIGIAN, R. PARRIS, AND B. MILLS
crew boss, because he was successful in m a k i n g it within the crew boss system.
Self Respect S o m e f a r m w o r k e r s a t t e m p t e d to maintain a p r i d e o r dignity in t h e m selves, despite t h e i r exploitation by the system. In o n e incident, described by several individuals, a w o r k e r felt he h a d b e e n exploited long e n o u g h . O n one payday, w h e n he received an especially small pay check, he t h r e w the m o n e y back at the crew boss. A l t h o u g h w o r k e r s a p p a r e n t l y e n d u r e d the exploitations by the crew boss, m a n y were sensitive to w h a t they d e f i n e d as p e r s o n a l slights o r insults. O n e w o r k e r described an interaction with the f a r m grower: One morning, Billings [the farm owner] said, "Goddam you, get those hoes." Well, i told him I don't have to catch none of them hoes--and you don't cuss at me no more. So, Slim he about face and turn and I went right along with him. So I said I don't take no shit like that. So we walked. We left the place--the camp. We were sitting there. So as we got about a mile down the road, we were trying to get to another c a m p - - m e and Slim. So Wilson picked us up and he asked me what was the matter. So I said well Billings cussed at us. He said well give him a try. He said let me go ahead and give you some things to straighten you out. He said, "cause I brought you here all the way from Florida and I don't want to see no man cussing at you and downing you 'cause I don't cuss and down you myself. He don't cuss nobody." So that's what happened. He went to Billings 'cause he brought us up here. See, what I had in my mind--I was going to the Labor Board. And I was going to get some kind of consideration. I'll make them send me back home. I was going to get off camp some kind of way. I believe that it could have been arranged if I could have reached there. T h e i m p o r t a n t thing a b o u t this incident is that the w o r k e r seems to be saying, in effect, "I a m a h u m a n being, I respect myself. I deserve respect f r o m others." W o r k e r s r e p o r t e d similar b e h a v i o r either in r e s p o n s e to the crew boss o r the grower. T h e sensitivity a n d r e s p o n s e to slights a n d insults can be viewed as the w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t o r y reaction to their inability to deal with b e i n g c h e a t e d a n d exploited. Verbal abuse by o t h e r s is i m m e d i a t e , direct a n d evident. Being c h e a t e d by the crew boss is n o t always evident. T h e w o r k e r m a y suspect that he has b e e n cheated, but he c a n n o t p r o v e it. H e can p r o v e the insult; because he feels that he has b e e n cheated, the insult is all the m o r e painful.
Self Criticism A l t h o u g h w o r k e r s m a n i f e s t e d a self-respect in some o f their behaviors, at the s a m e time they were critical o f some o f their own actions. T h e y were asked w h a t c h a n g e s they would m a k e in f a r m work. Few w o r k e r s could
34 PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY
think in terms of changing the crew boss system. They could propose little in the way of a different labor-management system. To the extent that they were critical of the system, it was in terms of the "evil" in those they worked for and with. Like the urban poor described by Hannerz 7, farm workers spend much of their free time hanging around and talking with each other--telling stories, engaging in horse play--all of which is personalistic in nature. In their discussion of exploitation, they seldom talked of the "system," of the undesirability of the crew boss system. Rather, they attributed their treatment to the "evil" in other workers, in the crew boss, and in the camp owner. A personalistic, rather than a sociological, view prevailed. However, they also blamed themselves for their own failure. When asked how a farm worker could be successful, many said that he could not, that he would have to leave farm work. But many of these qualified their answers by claiming that a worker could make it if he worked hard and saved his money, as Arthur Eaton was doing. Some would laugh at others who wasted their money on drink and women--as they themselves did the same thing--saying such things as: "You ain't ever goin' to get anywhere messin' around with women," and telling stories of fellow workers who had fallen into hard times because of their own derelictions. Thus, despite the nearly indisputable objective fact that for most workers there was no chance of success, and for those who had a chance, the gains were small, many workers continued to see their own and others' failures as a consequence of successful manipulation by others and of their own weaknesses. In this respect, they are like most other Americans. Few Americans think in terms of faults in the economic system or changes that could be made in the economic way of life. Rather, they see their own lack of success as due to the faults of others and to deficiencies in themselves.
Distrust of Others Related to this, is the view that the world is a jungle with everyone--not just crew bosses--out to get everyone else. Stories were told of instances of migrants stealing from each other, of assaulting each other, of fighting over women, of being left by" women who took their money, and the like. And one migrant said: I ain't gonna name names because I'm not that kind of guy, but wanta know who makes the money around here? I'll tell you who makes the money. If you say this and you say that and you don't like the work and you don't like the place, somebody's gonna tell Wilson. He's gonna say so-an-so's been talking about you, Wilson. Well that man has $150 in his pay envelope and you don't have but $10 or $15. Although stories such as this one were confirmed by several workers, they may have been rationalizations by the farm worker for his own failure. It is the kind of information that can never be proven. It is sustained only by the observation that the crew boss had three of four hangers-on who
35 D. HARPER,tt.M. BABIGIAN,R. PARRIS,AND B. MILLS
followed him wherever he went--as children might follow a parent. This may have been the only basis for the story of some workers spying on others and informing the crew boss. That several workers followed the crew boss suggests that some migrants respond to their own weakness and anxiety by drawing strength from the crew boss--thinking they have a close tie to him. Those who attach themselves to the crew boss may do so as much as for psychic needs as for increasing their earnings. They may, in fact, be paid no more than others but the crew boss pays them in "psychic money," letting them follow him around and talking to them. The view that others are "out to get you" is sustained by many of the events in the migrant camp. Relations between individuals are guided very little by any sort of norm. A pattern of exploitation is set by the crew boss and the camp owner. This, in turn, is consistent with, and encourages the exploitation of worker by worker. Middle-Class Values Two themes in the verbalization of migrants reflect a commitment to what are usually thought of as middle-class values. One value is showing respect for another individual and the other is getting ahead economically. There was more than occasional reference to raising children to be respectful to their elders. In an open-ended question people were asked what is the most important thing to teach children. A number said that one should teach children to stay in school and get an education, but a sizable number also said that children should be taught to show respect toward their elders. Several migrants referred to the Salter family, for example: Look at old Henry Salter. He teaches his children to say "Yes sir" and "No sir," and they do it. Those children mind their daddy. And he can't make enough money to buy them shoes. If treating others with respect is a form of behavior that most people in America value and attempt to teach their children, it is also recognized and valued by migrants. (Although the migrants' abuse and exploitation of one another would seem to contradict this statement, their actions may be interpreted as cases in which recognition and verbalization of a certain value system are not reflected in behavior.) Still another value is getting ahead--though it takes a peculiar form. A number of migrants expressed their problems and aspirations in terms like the following: "If I could earn a little money and get ahead, I'd get back south and things would be better there." When asked why they did not do this, they said it was not possible. They were not able to say how much money they would need. This seemed to be a vague aspiration--a hope for the better, but it was not exemplified in any concrete way. Nor could they say why things would be better in the south. Perhaps the south meant home. Their aspiration was not really that of getting ahead, but rather that
36 PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY
of leaving their present misery. The only alternative to the camp they were in was their home in the south.
"Numbness" About Life A final theme, and a characteristic that affects migrants' other beliefs, is a "numbness" with respect both to the past and the future. Only the present has any reality. The past is forgotten and there is little hope for the future so they do not think about it. In our interviews with migrants, we attempted to learn something about their past work history and the other significant events in their lives. However, a large number of workers were unable to locate in time or place such events as their entry into or discharge from military service, a marriage, a birth, a separation, or a serious injury. Likewise, when asked about the future, about their plans, hopes, and aspirations, about the kind of work they would like to be doing, about where they thought they would be in a year, many workers had little to say. The extent of their aspirations was to "get away from this place." The numbness about life keeps out any thought that there may be a better place in this world for the migrant farm worker. Thus, he does not think in terms of working hard, dislodging himself from his present circumstances, and finding that better place. He does not even say "there are better places in the world but they are not for me because I am an uneducated rural black." Rather, thoughts of the here and now, which are always in the migrant's mind, are never disrupted by concrete hopes for a better life next week, next month, or next year. This is like the "present-time orientation" discussed by Lewis. 9 Any individual facing a serious illness develops a present-time orientation and a numbness about life. The anxiety emerging out of the threat of the present is so great, that it is difficult to plan for the future or to contemplate the past. The numbness of the migrant is similar. It is his defensive reaction against the destructive social conditions in which he finds himself. CONCLUSIONS Although there is a reciprocal relation between social structure and belief systems (i.e., social structure reflects shared beliefs, and the belief systems of individuals are dependent on their places in the social structure), social structure is, in our judgment, the more crucial variable. The themes we enumerated above are not immutable elements in the lives of migrant farm workers. Rather, they are the particular viewpoints and beliefs which emerge as those individuals in the bottom segment of society respond and adapt to the conditions of migrant farm work. These are the beliefs and values of those who find themselves in a setting of exploitation.
37 D. HARPER, H.M. BABIGIAN, R. PARRIS, AND B. MILLS
What implications do these findings have for the organization of psychiatric care? Two conclusions, at least, should be emphasized. The first has to do with psychiatric diagnosis, and the second with psychiatric care and the role of the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist who would attempt to discern psychiatric disorder in migrants must understand the setting of migrant farm work and the adaptations that the farm laborer makes to that setting. Only by knowing these can the psychiatrist interpret and make sense out of the possibly symptomatic behaviors of the farm laborer. The psychiatrist would see much psychopathology in these camps-considerably more than would be found among urban blacks--primarily because the conditions of life in a migrant labor camp drive out any who can find a place for themselves elsewhere. But, at the same time, the psychiatrist may be misled if he attempts an interpretation of various behaviors without considering the setting. As indicated above, most migrants are suspicious and distrustful, and some may seem paranoid. But it would be a mistake to conclude that this is necessarily symptomatic of serious disorder. Rather the suspiciousness should be viewed in the context of their conditions of life. Migrants have realistic grounds for feeling persecuted and paranoid. They do, in fact, face others who would exploit them. Migrants may not be able to articulate anxiety in terms understandable to the urbane psychiatrist, however, our observations indicate they feel great anxiety and despair. But again they have good reason to feel anxious. In the camps they face many threats to their well-being. Thus, the behavior of migrants appears to be so intertwined with the immediate social conditions that it may be difficult to separate "situationally induced pathology" from more serious disorders. In this setting, it is difficult for an individual not to have feelings of paranoia, anxiety or depression. Secondly, this focus on the migrant farm worker raises the question of what should be the role o f mental health workers vis-&-vis the larger social conditions in which individuals are embedded. Some will argue that the psychiatrist and mental health worker should play an activist role, whereas others will claim that they should confine themselves to the task for which they were trained, viz., treating patients. Whether or not the mental health worker should or should not play an activist role depends on the precise nature o f that role; the activist role might consist of organizing or joining public demonstrations, or it might be the more private community and committee activities that attempt to alter the situation of the migrant farm laborer. In our judgment, if the activist role alienates or antagonizes some segment of the community, then it may be counterproductive with respect to the larger goals of positive mental health. Whatever is done should be done with the intent, and in the spirit, of strengthening the bonds between all members of the community. In this role, the mental health worker might function as a catalyst to bring the farmer, the crew boss, and the farm laborer together. A first objective of these meetings should be to help each of the three participants
38 PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY
to u n d e r s t a n d the situation o f the other. W i t h o u t minimizing the problems o f the f a r m e r o r the crew boss, the mental health w o r k e r must emphasize the situation o f the f a r m l a b o r e r - - p o i n t i n g o u t that the f a r m e r suffers f r o m the exploitative m i g r a n t f a r m labor system. Such g r o u p meetings may not result in any positive change; o t h e r a n d m o r e drastic measures may be required. However, the f a r m e r a n d the crew boss have it in their p o w e r to alter the noxious living and w o r k i n g conditions o f their own m i g r a n t farm laborers. I f the mental health w o r k e r is to have an impact on i m p r o v i n g the mental health o f individual laborers, he must try to implicate others in that effort. T h e mental health problems o f the f a r m laborer are affected by the larger social conditions, and these c a n n o t be altered by the mental health w o r k e r alone.
REFERENCES 1. Bryce H: Alternative policies for increasing the earnings of migratory farm workers. Public Policy 18: 413-428, t970. 2. Ducoff L: Migratory farm workers: A problem in migration analysis. Rural Sociot 16: 217-224, 1951. 3. Friedland W: Labor waste in New York: Rural exploitation and migrant workers. Transaction February, 48-53, 1969. 4. Friedland W, Nelkin D: Migrant: Agriculture Workers in America's Northeast. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. 5. Friedland W, Nelkin D: Technological trends and the organization of migrant farm workers. Soc Problems 19: 509-521, 1972. 6. Graham P, Meadows C: Psychiatric disorder in the children of West Indian immigrants. J Child PsycholPsychiatry 8:105-116, 1967. 7. Hannerz U: Soulside: Inquiries into Ghetto Culture and Community. New York, Columbia University Press, 1969. 8. Kiev A: Psychiatric morbidity of West Indian immigrants in an urban group practice. BrJPsychiatry 111: 51-56, 1965. 9. Lewis O: The culture of poverty. Sci Am 2t5: 19-25, 1966. 10. Moore T: The Slaves We Rent. New York, Random House, 1965. 11. Nelkin D: The response to marginality: The case of migrant farm workers. B r j Sociot 20: 375-389, 1969. 12. Nelkin D: Unpredictability and life style in migrant labor camp. SocProbtems 17: 472-487, 1970. 13. Rushing W: Objectiveand subjective aspects of deprivation in a rural poverty class. Rural Sociot 33: 269-284, t968. 14. Wright D: They Harvest Despair. Boston, Beacon Press, 1964.
Ph.D. M.D. Ph.D. Ph.D.
Two migrant farm labor camps were observed during two summer harvesting seasons. A part of the observations consisted of interviews with 104 farm laborers, with 16 of them being interviewed intensively. Migrant farm workers were exploited by the crew boss and the farm owner, and they in turn exploited each other. Consequently, many workers left farm work. Those who remained in the camps adapted their attitudes and their views to the conditions. Though they had a begrudging respect for the crew boss, they showed an overriding concern with exploitation. They conveyed a numbness about life, themselves, and their place in society; this numbness was combined with self-criticism and an attempt to maintain some self-respect. They expressed distrust for and suspicion of others, and though they could not articulate it very well, they felt great fear and anxiety. In order to diagnose and treat disorder in migrant farm workers, psychiatrists must understand the exploitive social setting of migrant farm work and the adaptations of workers to that setting.
O u r observations o f m i g r a n t labor c a m p s suggest that t h e r e is considerable p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y a m o n g the w o r k e r s r e q u i r i n g the attention o f c o m m u n i t y psychiatrists. H o w e v e r , b e f o r e a t t e m p t i n g to p r o v i d e psychiatric care, c o m m u n i t y psychiatrists n e e d to u n d e r s t a n d the social conditions o f m i g r a n t f a r m w o r k a n d the adaptive belief systems o f m i g r a n t f a r m workers. C o m m u n i t y psychiatrists have m o v e d away f r o m the office a n d the
Dr. Harper is Professor of Sociology and Psychiatry, and Dr. Babigian is Professor of Psychiatry and Acting Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York. Dr. Parris is Associate Professor of Sociology in Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and Dr. Mills is Assistant Professor of Sociology at Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas. Reprint requests should be addressed to Dr. Harper at the Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York. 28
PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY, VOL 51(1) 1979 0033.2720/79/I 300-0028500.95
29 D. HARPER, H. M. BABIGIAN, R. PARRIS, AND B. MILLS
hospital setting; they have tried to provide care to segments of the population who have heretofore not received it and they have tried to provide it in innovative ways. However, one segment o f the population which has received very little medical or psychiatric attention consists of those who continue to "follow the sun"--the migrant farm workers. Having changed little in the past 30 years, the migrant labor camps of the North have attracted and continue to attract the attention of sociologists 1-a'11-1~ and journalists. 1°'14 These camps have been likened to prisons, prisoner of war camps, and concentration camps. Despite some similarities, there are crucial differences--one of which is that in the migrant labor camp, few workers are held against their will; they can usually leave when they want. Those who remain in these camps, however, show many forms of social pathology and psychopathology. Some attention has been given to urban migrants. 6,8 However, community psychiatry must attend also to rural migrants. In doing so, psychiatrists need an understanding o f the setting for the psychopathology they will see, or believe they see, in farm workers. This paper will describe that setting, outline what we call the "belief systems" of workers, and discuss the implications for psychiatric care. In our judgment, a knowledge of both the social conditions o f migrant farm work and the adaptive belief systems of migrants must precede any attempt to study and alleviate the psychic distress o f migrant farm workers. This paper is the result of research that was directed initially to psychopathology among migrant farm workers. We were interested in estimating the amount and kinds of disorder among migrants and in relating this to their life histories. Early in our investigations, it became apparent that we could not study psychopathology without attempting to understand social conditions in farm labor camps. Indeed, behavior which originally seemed symptomatic of mental disorder, appeared far less so once it was viewed in the light of the social conditions of the camps. Thus, our experience was like that of the psychiatrist who visits the home of a patient and becomes distracted with the sickness of other family members and with the living conditions of the family that impinges on their illness. Two migrant labor camps in upstate New York were studied during two summers. During the first summer, we "hung around" the camps, talking with workers, drinking a bit, trying our hand at working in the fields; during the second gummer, we continued these activities but, in addition, we interviewed all of the 104 workers who were in the camps at the beginning of work season. We interviewed with a structured questionnaire that focused on past work history, present work experiences, aspirations, attitudes, and beliefs. We also attempted to elicit self-reports of various symptoms of mental disorder. At the end o f the summer, 45 workers remaining in one of the two camps were reinterviewed, or interviewed if they had not been in the camp during the earlier interviews. Sixteen workers were interviewed at greater length; these interviews, recorded on a tape recorder, explored some of the issues in greater detail. The interviews and observations provide the data for this paper.
30 PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY
T H E SETTING OF MIGRANT FARM WORK The typical migrant labor camp consists of a number of wooden, cinder block, or corrugated metal buildings clustered together on the land o f a farmer. The farmer contracts with a crew boss to have his fruit or vegetables picked. The crew boss has the job of managing labor; he hires, supervises, and pays the worker. The farmer will typically deal only with the crew boss. In the northeastern United States, the crew boss and his workers are most frequently Puerto Ricans or southern blacks. The larger of the two camps we studied, and the more typical of migrant labor camps, was on a grower's land. The crew of 70 or 80 worked solely for this grower, picking cherries, apples, tomatoes, lettuce, cabbage and cucumbers as each crop became ripe. The crew boss had contracted with the grower to pick these crops for a fixed cost for the season. Out of this, the crew boss paid his workers and earned his profit. The crew boss rented the camp from the grower and, in turn, rented accommodations to workers for $ 8-10 a week. A dining hall and commissary was operated by the crew boss's wife. Workers were charged $3 a day for food. In addition, the crew boss sold candy, liquor, beer, soft drinks, gloves, shoes and the like, but at a cost of about twice that in nearby towns. Typically, the farm worker rented his room and purchased meals and other items on credit. Each week, his debts were deducted from his earnings. The farm worker was paid on a piece-work basis; records were kept by the crew boss and by his field foreman. In some instances, the field foreman erred in his record keeping, favoring some with extra counts at the expense of others who received short counts. Regardless, the worker would typically find his weekly pay envelope contained $10-20, the rest of his earnings of $80-$100 having been deducted for rent, food, and other expenses or charges. The crew boss did not attempt to hide the fact that he was successful and his workers were not. He claimed that it was a bad season for him when he did not clear $40,000 for the seven or eight months of camp operation. Whether the crew boss profited $5,000 or $50,000 is irrelevant, since most workers return to the south as they came--penniless. The second camp, with about 45 workers, was smaller. It was located on the land of a retired grower. The crew boss contracted the labor of his crew with several small growers, sometimes harvesting the crops of several growers simultaneously. This crew was in the north for a shorter period of time. The crew boss operated a store but not a dining room. Workers had to prepare their own meals from food purchased from the crew boss. Here also, they incurred debts which were deducted from their weekly earnings. In this camp, there was little physical violence. The boss was the strongest man but he seldom directed his strength physically against other workers. Rather, he attempted to maintain control by not recruiting would-be troublemakers and by banishing troublemakers from his camp. He prohibited drinking and gambling and kept prostitutes away. He also tried--and was partially successful--in keeping us off the camp and from
31 D. HARPER,H.M.BABIGIAN,R. PARRIS,AND B. MILLS
talking with the workers. He was a former preacher and tried to manage the camp, in his words, "in Christian love." His workers, however, earned no more than did those in the other camp.
CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS' BELIEF SYSTEMS By belief systems, we mean that set of beliefs and attitudes shared in common by most migrants. These are the beliefs and views about the camp, themselves, their place in the camp, and in society. We try to show that these beliefs and views result from attempts of migrant farm workers to adapt to their living and working conditions. Any assessment of psychopathology in an individual must be'judged against the adaptive belief system of those in the community to which he belongs--many o f whom are assumed not to exhibit serious psychopathology. Obviously, not all workers in these two camps are alike in demographic characteristics, educational achievement, and family or work experiences. Thus they are not alike in beliefs, attitudes, or values. Nevertheless, a number of beliefs and attitudes recurred in the interviews with migrants, who were otherwise different.
Exploitation The overriding experience in the lives of all migrant farm workers is
exploitation. As described above, their labor is exploited by the crew boss and the farm grower. Occasionally they are physically abused by the crew boss and their fellow workers. The question is: how do workers sense and experience this exploitation? How do they view the system which traps them in a life of poverty, illness, and helplessness? Although workers cannot articulate it very well, the exploitation they experience enters into much of their thought and conversation. When interviewed with a questionnaire and asked about camp or crew boss, many will say that it is a good camp and that they have a good crew boss. Yet the same workers, when talking freely, will refer to the camp as a "bad camp," as the "worst one they have ever been in," the crew boss as a "bad one." They talk to each other a b , ut the conduct of the crew boss, about how one worker, when sick one day, could not buy food on credit, about another working all week and finding $2 in his pay envelope, about the lack of heat in their rooms and the like. For example, one worker talked about Wilson, the crew boss of the larger camp: I had a buddy, David. He's married, he's from Tallahassee, Florida. Billy, his wife, was pregnant. And Billy worked every day of the week and David got rushed somewhat and he got down where he needed money to get medicine with.., the doctor told him to get some kind of medicine and he needed money. Wilson won't give him money. And David went out, he was half dead, that boy was half dead, he was down on his knees crawling, picking cucumbers. And he scraped up enough
32 PSYCttlATRIC QUARTERLY
money for him and his wife to go to Florida. And when they left and got on that bus to go to Florida, you know how much money they had to eat on all the way down there? $1.25 apiece. Now you know they needed help, and that man over there wouldn't help them, and he won't give David no money for his medicine. Migrants may accept the fact o f exploitation because they are powerless to do anything about it, but that does not m e a n that they believe it just o r fair. Most workers have a sense o f a p p r o p r i a t e a n d i n a p p r o p r i a t e behavior, but would react to exploitation by not defining it as such, o r by defining it as unfair and resigning themselves to it. Most o f the migrants felt that they were treated unjustly, but felt that the only thing they could do was to leave the camp.
Respectfor the Crew Boss A l t h o u g h workers were critical o f the way they were treated, at the same time t h e r e was a respect for the crew boss; m a n y workers a d m i r e d him because he was successful. Each crew boss started as a f a r m worker, had seen how the system works, and had the capacity to be successful within the system. T h e crew bosses may d e p l o r e the m i g r a n t c a m p system, as these two crew bosses said they did, yet they are not motivated to try to change it; and if they were, they would be powerless to m a k e m a n y changes. T h e y see the migrant camp system as existing regardless o f what they do; so, given this, they might as well take advantage o f it, and each crew boss did. T h e y did not exploit e v e r y o n e in every way. As Wilson, the crew boss in the larger camp, said: See that boy over there--Arthur Eaton. i wish he were my son. He is one of the hardest working men I've ever had. He clears $150 to $175 every week. And he banks it all. He goes into town on Friday night and puts it in the bank. He don't drink, he don't mess around with women. He's going in the army and when he gets out I'm going to send him to college, if it takes every cent I have. T h i s y o u n g m a n verified that he e a r n e d and b a n k e d what the crew boss claimed he did, but he was clearly exceptional. A l t h o u g h each crew boss was successful, each knew that there was no f u t u r e in farm work. In their own success, they manifested the value o f h a r d work, as well as the ability to manipulate and exploit. A n d each instilled in his own children the values o f h a r d work and the i m p o r t a n c e o f an education. T h e crew boss in the larger camp was sending all but one o f his children to college. T h e crew boss in the smaller camp had eight child r e n and he had sent or was sending all to college. T o exploit others is just a n o t h e r means o f achieving economic success. Hence, one who is successful at it should be respected just as he should be respected if he achieves a college education. By this token, although protesting their own treatment, many workers felt a g r u d g i n g respect for their
33
D. HARPER, H.M. BABIGIAN, R. PARRIS, AND B. MILLS
crew boss, because he was successful in m a k i n g it within the crew boss system.
Self Respect S o m e f a r m w o r k e r s a t t e m p t e d to maintain a p r i d e o r dignity in t h e m selves, despite t h e i r exploitation by the system. In o n e incident, described by several individuals, a w o r k e r felt he h a d b e e n exploited long e n o u g h . O n one payday, w h e n he received an especially small pay check, he t h r e w the m o n e y back at the crew boss. A l t h o u g h w o r k e r s a p p a r e n t l y e n d u r e d the exploitations by the crew boss, m a n y were sensitive to w h a t they d e f i n e d as p e r s o n a l slights o r insults. O n e w o r k e r described an interaction with the f a r m grower: One morning, Billings [the farm owner] said, "Goddam you, get those hoes." Well, i told him I don't have to catch none of them hoes--and you don't cuss at me no more. So, Slim he about face and turn and I went right along with him. So I said I don't take no shit like that. So we walked. We left the place--the camp. We were sitting there. So as we got about a mile down the road, we were trying to get to another c a m p - - m e and Slim. So Wilson picked us up and he asked me what was the matter. So I said well Billings cussed at us. He said well give him a try. He said let me go ahead and give you some things to straighten you out. He said, "cause I brought you here all the way from Florida and I don't want to see no man cussing at you and downing you 'cause I don't cuss and down you myself. He don't cuss nobody." So that's what happened. He went to Billings 'cause he brought us up here. See, what I had in my mind--I was going to the Labor Board. And I was going to get some kind of consideration. I'll make them send me back home. I was going to get off camp some kind of way. I believe that it could have been arranged if I could have reached there. T h e i m p o r t a n t thing a b o u t this incident is that the w o r k e r seems to be saying, in effect, "I a m a h u m a n being, I respect myself. I deserve respect f r o m others." W o r k e r s r e p o r t e d similar b e h a v i o r either in r e s p o n s e to the crew boss o r the grower. T h e sensitivity a n d r e s p o n s e to slights a n d insults can be viewed as the w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t o r y reaction to their inability to deal with b e i n g c h e a t e d a n d exploited. Verbal abuse by o t h e r s is i m m e d i a t e , direct a n d evident. Being c h e a t e d by the crew boss is n o t always evident. T h e w o r k e r m a y suspect that he has b e e n cheated, but he c a n n o t p r o v e it. H e can p r o v e the insult; because he feels that he has b e e n cheated, the insult is all the m o r e painful.
Self Criticism A l t h o u g h w o r k e r s m a n i f e s t e d a self-respect in some o f their behaviors, at the s a m e time they were critical o f some o f their own actions. T h e y were asked w h a t c h a n g e s they would m a k e in f a r m work. Few w o r k e r s could
34 PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY
think in terms of changing the crew boss system. They could propose little in the way of a different labor-management system. To the extent that they were critical of the system, it was in terms of the "evil" in those they worked for and with. Like the urban poor described by Hannerz 7, farm workers spend much of their free time hanging around and talking with each other--telling stories, engaging in horse play--all of which is personalistic in nature. In their discussion of exploitation, they seldom talked of the "system," of the undesirability of the crew boss system. Rather, they attributed their treatment to the "evil" in other workers, in the crew boss, and in the camp owner. A personalistic, rather than a sociological, view prevailed. However, they also blamed themselves for their own failure. When asked how a farm worker could be successful, many said that he could not, that he would have to leave farm work. But many of these qualified their answers by claiming that a worker could make it if he worked hard and saved his money, as Arthur Eaton was doing. Some would laugh at others who wasted their money on drink and women--as they themselves did the same thing--saying such things as: "You ain't ever goin' to get anywhere messin' around with women," and telling stories of fellow workers who had fallen into hard times because of their own derelictions. Thus, despite the nearly indisputable objective fact that for most workers there was no chance of success, and for those who had a chance, the gains were small, many workers continued to see their own and others' failures as a consequence of successful manipulation by others and of their own weaknesses. In this respect, they are like most other Americans. Few Americans think in terms of faults in the economic system or changes that could be made in the economic way of life. Rather, they see their own lack of success as due to the faults of others and to deficiencies in themselves.
Distrust of Others Related to this, is the view that the world is a jungle with everyone--not just crew bosses--out to get everyone else. Stories were told of instances of migrants stealing from each other, of assaulting each other, of fighting over women, of being left by" women who took their money, and the like. And one migrant said: I ain't gonna name names because I'm not that kind of guy, but wanta know who makes the money around here? I'll tell you who makes the money. If you say this and you say that and you don't like the work and you don't like the place, somebody's gonna tell Wilson. He's gonna say so-an-so's been talking about you, Wilson. Well that man has $150 in his pay envelope and you don't have but $10 or $15. Although stories such as this one were confirmed by several workers, they may have been rationalizations by the farm worker for his own failure. It is the kind of information that can never be proven. It is sustained only by the observation that the crew boss had three of four hangers-on who
35 D. HARPER,tt.M. BABIGIAN,R. PARRIS,AND B. MILLS
followed him wherever he went--as children might follow a parent. This may have been the only basis for the story of some workers spying on others and informing the crew boss. That several workers followed the crew boss suggests that some migrants respond to their own weakness and anxiety by drawing strength from the crew boss--thinking they have a close tie to him. Those who attach themselves to the crew boss may do so as much as for psychic needs as for increasing their earnings. They may, in fact, be paid no more than others but the crew boss pays them in "psychic money," letting them follow him around and talking to them. The view that others are "out to get you" is sustained by many of the events in the migrant camp. Relations between individuals are guided very little by any sort of norm. A pattern of exploitation is set by the crew boss and the camp owner. This, in turn, is consistent with, and encourages the exploitation of worker by worker. Middle-Class Values Two themes in the verbalization of migrants reflect a commitment to what are usually thought of as middle-class values. One value is showing respect for another individual and the other is getting ahead economically. There was more than occasional reference to raising children to be respectful to their elders. In an open-ended question people were asked what is the most important thing to teach children. A number said that one should teach children to stay in school and get an education, but a sizable number also said that children should be taught to show respect toward their elders. Several migrants referred to the Salter family, for example: Look at old Henry Salter. He teaches his children to say "Yes sir" and "No sir," and they do it. Those children mind their daddy. And he can't make enough money to buy them shoes. If treating others with respect is a form of behavior that most people in America value and attempt to teach their children, it is also recognized and valued by migrants. (Although the migrants' abuse and exploitation of one another would seem to contradict this statement, their actions may be interpreted as cases in which recognition and verbalization of a certain value system are not reflected in behavior.) Still another value is getting ahead--though it takes a peculiar form. A number of migrants expressed their problems and aspirations in terms like the following: "If I could earn a little money and get ahead, I'd get back south and things would be better there." When asked why they did not do this, they said it was not possible. They were not able to say how much money they would need. This seemed to be a vague aspiration--a hope for the better, but it was not exemplified in any concrete way. Nor could they say why things would be better in the south. Perhaps the south meant home. Their aspiration was not really that of getting ahead, but rather that
36 PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY
of leaving their present misery. The only alternative to the camp they were in was their home in the south.
"Numbness" About Life A final theme, and a characteristic that affects migrants' other beliefs, is a "numbness" with respect both to the past and the future. Only the present has any reality. The past is forgotten and there is little hope for the future so they do not think about it. In our interviews with migrants, we attempted to learn something about their past work history and the other significant events in their lives. However, a large number of workers were unable to locate in time or place such events as their entry into or discharge from military service, a marriage, a birth, a separation, or a serious injury. Likewise, when asked about the future, about their plans, hopes, and aspirations, about the kind of work they would like to be doing, about where they thought they would be in a year, many workers had little to say. The extent of their aspirations was to "get away from this place." The numbness about life keeps out any thought that there may be a better place in this world for the migrant farm worker. Thus, he does not think in terms of working hard, dislodging himself from his present circumstances, and finding that better place. He does not even say "there are better places in the world but they are not for me because I am an uneducated rural black." Rather, thoughts of the here and now, which are always in the migrant's mind, are never disrupted by concrete hopes for a better life next week, next month, or next year. This is like the "present-time orientation" discussed by Lewis. 9 Any individual facing a serious illness develops a present-time orientation and a numbness about life. The anxiety emerging out of the threat of the present is so great, that it is difficult to plan for the future or to contemplate the past. The numbness of the migrant is similar. It is his defensive reaction against the destructive social conditions in which he finds himself. CONCLUSIONS Although there is a reciprocal relation between social structure and belief systems (i.e., social structure reflects shared beliefs, and the belief systems of individuals are dependent on their places in the social structure), social structure is, in our judgment, the more crucial variable. The themes we enumerated above are not immutable elements in the lives of migrant farm workers. Rather, they are the particular viewpoints and beliefs which emerge as those individuals in the bottom segment of society respond and adapt to the conditions of migrant farm work. These are the beliefs and values of those who find themselves in a setting of exploitation.
37 D. HARPER, H.M. BABIGIAN, R. PARRIS, AND B. MILLS
What implications do these findings have for the organization of psychiatric care? Two conclusions, at least, should be emphasized. The first has to do with psychiatric diagnosis, and the second with psychiatric care and the role of the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist who would attempt to discern psychiatric disorder in migrants must understand the setting of migrant farm work and the adaptations that the farm laborer makes to that setting. Only by knowing these can the psychiatrist interpret and make sense out of the possibly symptomatic behaviors of the farm laborer. The psychiatrist would see much psychopathology in these camps-considerably more than would be found among urban blacks--primarily because the conditions of life in a migrant labor camp drive out any who can find a place for themselves elsewhere. But, at the same time, the psychiatrist may be misled if he attempts an interpretation of various behaviors without considering the setting. As indicated above, most migrants are suspicious and distrustful, and some may seem paranoid. But it would be a mistake to conclude that this is necessarily symptomatic of serious disorder. Rather the suspiciousness should be viewed in the context of their conditions of life. Migrants have realistic grounds for feeling persecuted and paranoid. They do, in fact, face others who would exploit them. Migrants may not be able to articulate anxiety in terms understandable to the urbane psychiatrist, however, our observations indicate they feel great anxiety and despair. But again they have good reason to feel anxious. In the camps they face many threats to their well-being. Thus, the behavior of migrants appears to be so intertwined with the immediate social conditions that it may be difficult to separate "situationally induced pathology" from more serious disorders. In this setting, it is difficult for an individual not to have feelings of paranoia, anxiety or depression. Secondly, this focus on the migrant farm worker raises the question of what should be the role o f mental health workers vis-&-vis the larger social conditions in which individuals are embedded. Some will argue that the psychiatrist and mental health worker should play an activist role, whereas others will claim that they should confine themselves to the task for which they were trained, viz., treating patients. Whether or not the mental health worker should or should not play an activist role depends on the precise nature o f that role; the activist role might consist of organizing or joining public demonstrations, or it might be the more private community and committee activities that attempt to alter the situation of the migrant farm laborer. In our judgment, if the activist role alienates or antagonizes some segment of the community, then it may be counterproductive with respect to the larger goals of positive mental health. Whatever is done should be done with the intent, and in the spirit, of strengthening the bonds between all members of the community. In this role, the mental health worker might function as a catalyst to bring the farmer, the crew boss, and the farm laborer together. A first objective of these meetings should be to help each of the three participants
38 PSYCHIATRIC QUARTERLY
to u n d e r s t a n d the situation o f the other. W i t h o u t minimizing the problems o f the f a r m e r o r the crew boss, the mental health w o r k e r must emphasize the situation o f the f a r m l a b o r e r - - p o i n t i n g o u t that the f a r m e r suffers f r o m the exploitative m i g r a n t f a r m labor system. Such g r o u p meetings may not result in any positive change; o t h e r a n d m o r e drastic measures may be required. However, the f a r m e r a n d the crew boss have it in their p o w e r to alter the noxious living and w o r k i n g conditions o f their own m i g r a n t farm laborers. I f the mental health w o r k e r is to have an impact on i m p r o v i n g the mental health o f individual laborers, he must try to implicate others in that effort. T h e mental health problems o f the f a r m laborer are affected by the larger social conditions, and these c a n n o t be altered by the mental health w o r k e r alone.
REFERENCES 1. Bryce H: Alternative policies for increasing the earnings of migratory farm workers. Public Policy 18: 413-428, t970. 2. Ducoff L: Migratory farm workers: A problem in migration analysis. Rural Sociot 16: 217-224, 1951. 3. Friedland W: Labor waste in New York: Rural exploitation and migrant workers. Transaction February, 48-53, 1969. 4. Friedland W, Nelkin D: Migrant: Agriculture Workers in America's Northeast. New York, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972. 5. Friedland W, Nelkin D: Technological trends and the organization of migrant farm workers. Soc Problems 19: 509-521, 1972. 6. Graham P, Meadows C: Psychiatric disorder in the children of West Indian immigrants. J Child PsycholPsychiatry 8:105-116, 1967. 7. Hannerz U: Soulside: Inquiries into Ghetto Culture and Community. New York, Columbia University Press, 1969. 8. Kiev A: Psychiatric morbidity of West Indian immigrants in an urban group practice. BrJPsychiatry 111: 51-56, 1965. 9. Lewis O: The culture of poverty. Sci Am 2t5: 19-25, 1966. 10. Moore T: The Slaves We Rent. New York, Random House, 1965. 11. Nelkin D: The response to marginality: The case of migrant farm workers. B r j Sociot 20: 375-389, 1969. 12. Nelkin D: Unpredictability and life style in migrant labor camp. SocProbtems 17: 472-487, 1970. 13. Rushing W: Objectiveand subjective aspects of deprivation in a rural poverty class. Rural Sociot 33: 269-284, t968. 14. Wright D: They Harvest Despair. Boston, Beacon Press, 1964.
